[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Patchwork Chimera]

Originally Posted by Renall

Right, so, you just proved the utter stupidity of even discussing Battler's death in red. Which means... wait, what are you talking about? Because Battler's idiotic stupid amnesia only even works in that context.

Shouldn't we be applying greater realistic scrutiny to something not inside the catbox?

Basically you're completely incoherent.

1) Battler's stupid amnesia sure thing is stupid. I'm not defending it's use. But is something that happened, so no use getting mad about it.
2) We are "applying greater realistic scrutiny to something not inside the box" namely, Battler's survival in EP8. Or at least, I'm asking we do that for the before mentioned points.
--Someone tried to disacredit his survival to make room for 'Tohya=random' calling that red line "Battler's dead!" and then saying that 'personality death' applied to real Battler is bullshit because his case didn't follow the rules that Yasu's personalities had to follow. Aura supported that.
--I countered that Yasu's 'personality death' definition has no great impact in Battler's case, because they're at different sides of the catbox lid. I also wrote that I feel a personality death less crazy if applied to an amnesiac than to an actor, talking about it as the resourse Ryuukishi tried to use in his twilights.

Where is the incoherence? Stop being so defensive, I'm not bashing your friend -just telling him/her that s/he's being agressive-. I'm trying to be a levelheaded goat here, and Aura's being a little too brusque with a simple point.

[AuraTwilight]

First of all... there's a difference between being frank and being just agressive. Chill and read again what you wrote. When you don't find anything wrong with what you wrote and say that is natural, I'm just gonna assume that you do not realize that you sound like you're raging instead of playing devil's advocate or giving some opinion.

English is my third language, so I do apologize.

That being said, I don't really care about how I sound. It shouldn't have any impact on the merit of my statements.

Solving Umineko no Naku Koro Ni is not just explaining those forgeries.

Ryukishi does not agree, if Our Confession is any indication.

You can't honestly say you believed that all the rules apply to all the layers...

You're absolutely right. It's also absolutely not like anything Renall and I have been suggesting the slightest bit, which only reinforces my assertion that you do not understand what the two of us are saying.

So maybe Ryuukishi's answers don't have any logic and sound as bull. Maybe some resources he used are seem as unfair. Remember that Ryuukishi is the witch that's trying to hide the truth? Remember that even the in-story detectives follow his lead to hide/ignore what could give away Beatrice's heart? Yeah, something like that. With detectives and witch hunters crying about the unfairness of a game made by a Witch, I fear for the future of the Anti-fantasy fanbase. We're just going down so hard I can almost hear how Featherine alias 'AuthorAvatar' is laughing at us...

None of this has anything to do with the fact that Ryukishi cheated at his own game and refuses to be intellectually honest with his story. I don't even have to go to different 'layers' of the story to demonstrate that, because '1998 doesn't function like Beato's gameboard' was never the point.

--Someone tried to disacredit his survival to make room for 'Tohya=random' calling that red line "Battler's dead!" and then saying that 'personality death' applied to real Battler is bullshit because his case didn't follow the rules that Yasu's personalities had to follow. Aura supported that.

...Um. That's not exactly what I was supporting. Again.

--I countered that Yasu's 'personality death' definition has no great impact in Battler's case, because they're at different sides of the catbox lid. I also wrote that I feel a personality death less crazy if applied to an amnesiac than to an actor, talking about it as the resourse Ryuukishi tried to use in his twilights.

If Battler is on the 'other side of the catbox' and thus has different rules, then the Red Truth shouldn't be able to talk about him. That's Renall's point; it's the same sort of problem as having 'Death' mean two or three or four different things in the Red Truth, making it a useless tool where anyone can say anything if they redefine words. That's how Ryukishi undermined his entire game.

Where is the incoherence? Stop being so defensive, I'm not bashing your friend -just telling him/her that s/he's being agressive-. I'm trying to be a levelheaded goat here, and Aura's being a little too brusque with a simple point.

See above. I'm not being aggressive; you are, however, being condescending.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

But aside from all of that, in both Ikuko=Yasu and Ikuko=RandomStranger there is the possibility, that Tohya's memories about "Tohya's first encouncer with Ikuko" may have been manipulated by Ikuko. For example it is possible that Tohya was actually NEVER hit by a car, but by telling lies for a long time, she may have made him believe it happened like in the bits of EP8.

Well that's one of the problems connected with theories questioning the identities of either Ikuko and Tohya. If you doubt the scenes that you've seen your theory isn't as much grounded than a theory that works wihout doubting them.
In addition when you doubt them, you'll also create the condition in which not just your theory but a lot of similar theories become equally valid. So you can't say that your theory is better than another, you'll have no ground to state that since you disbelieve it.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

The first time i saw these scenes i doubted them. In the middle of EP8 there was suddenly some story about Battler/Tohya (i instantly knew it was him, because i got spoiled about that info), then suddenly it goes back to Ange. Also Ikuko's behavior seemed inconsistent, as sometimes she had the personality from the tea party and sometimes she was a very shy person, which remembered me a bit of chick Beatrice.

I think Ikuko's personality is always consistent whenever she is actually Ikuko and not "Featherinne\Hachijou Tohya".
When you consider the scenes seen through the eyes of Tohya and Yukari, she is never arrogant the same way Featherinne is, as far as I remember.
Since this difference is quite apparent as you've also notice it, I believe that scenes where Ikuko isn't talking about "child of man" and the like, are scenes that actually happened.

Originally Posted by Renall

Well, we do know that apparently he was carried to a place near where she lived and may have been inclined to visit that area which would've led to her finding him. We don't know for example that perhaps, if Battler drifted to shore near there, lots of other stuff didn't too. Junk, refuse, bits of furniture, stuff like that. It's quite likely, and I think it would be much more probable that someone happened to be in the area more often looking through the debris for interesting clues or valuable items from the disaster (perhaps another message bottle...). That they hear about someone who they wonder might actually be a survivor then becomes an incidental result of being interested in the area for other purposes, and then they make it their mission to hunt him down. They come upon him injured somewhere and take him home to see who he is, and then they discover he's amnesiac and it goes from there.

If you happened to be interested in seeing what turned up (whether that be just objects of interest or survivors), you might be inclined to visit the area more frequently. If you hear about some homeless guy in the area, well... it makes a lot more sense than pure random coincidence no matter who Tohya and Ikuko are.

But again, that applies as much to Ikuko being just who she is as it would to Ikuko being Yasu. They'd both have incentive to go check out the area's beaches or whatever and see if anything intriguing turned up.

Well I think this is a bit difficult to explain. I think it would take a while for debris to drift to whatever shore, with the time increasing the farther the shore they drift to. We know that the nearest place to Rokkenjima (Niijima) is 30 minutes away with a very fast boat.

However evidence suggests that Ikuko doesn't live in Niijima. Because after being visited by Ange and Amakusa in EP6 it is said that they needed to take a ferry.
There's no ferry leading to Rokkenjima, therefore they needed to take a ferry TO Niijima. Which is why it is believed that Ikuko lives in Shimoda or near it.
Naturally that whole scene never actually happened in prime, but if fake scenes aren't completely random, at least the location where Ikuko lives should be true.

So what I'm trying to say is that Battler in order to survive should've arrived to whatever shore faster than the debris, probably using a motorboat (as it's suggested). It's really difficult to imagine how else he could have survived that long drifting in the middle of the ocean, especially if he was mentally impaired.

A maniac specifically looking for Rokkenjima debris could only know about the location to search in only after debris where spotted. It's almost impossible to foresee where they would end up without specific knowledge about the ocean currents (and I doubt they would divulge those).

If Battler ended in Shimoda as it's suggested, the area would be pretty wide.

the other option is that he ended in Niijima or a near island and that the maniac that adopted him specifically went there (even if she didn't live close). But I'd expect a lot of rescuer around in those days, I'm sure there's been squads looking for survivors. If Battler somehow managed to slip through the searches it is more probable that he ended up far from the site of the incident.

[GuestSpeaker]

Once again with the Kanon thing, that is because you view him as a social construct. From my view that Ryu intended him a separate person, even if that barely makes sense, then even if you can't tell the difference between Kanon and someone pretending to be him HE STILL ISN'T THE SAME PERSON. It is hard to prove the difference between you and you pretending to be you, but I think Kanon is truly meant in the answer to not be Yasu. As Ryu said, that was the whole point of the red that "a servant cannot be the culprit". A ridiculously good impersonation of Kanon is still not him, just as a robot programmed to act like Kanon in every way would not be him. This would be cheating if Yasu could create a Kanon persona that was essentially Kanon's clone but not him, but i never got the feeling that is what was happening. If kanon was declared dead and then his double walked around the game, that would be cheating and wrong. But my feeling was that Kanon's resurrection for Jessica would not really have been capable of that, as it was just a voice to say some comforting things to her. If this actually ever even happened, it may not have even had Kanon's memories or personality.

That's what Renall and I are both complaining about. You can justify it however you want, but there's a slippery slope created here that makes all speculation about Umineko absolutely meaningless and futile.

It's funny, but even though it caused this huge issue for you I never had a problem with it. I was fully able to apply Ryu's rather flexible of death to solve the puzzles, and had no problem with it applying to Battler. It didn't throw a spanner in my works because I think I used it as it was intended to, and maybe if I'd been more core and analysed everything word for word it wouldn't have, but the fact is I had no problem reaching the answers (eventually, though apparently slower than most of you guys) using them.


Also remember when Ryu said people complained the reds left too many gaps to be able to tell what happened, and that he didn't understand why they didn't fill the gaps? Well even if the way (rather possibly sloppily) Ryu did write his reds allow you to kill off all 18 characters in a way that leaves just their alter egos, why not do it. If you can reach a clean, clear and sensible conclusion to the Beato mystery using that method then good for you, if not maybe it is possible but likely not correct.

Indeed one could argue they exist only when Battler is observing them.

Indeed I could argue when you are alone that the parts of the world you cannot touch, smell, hear or taste disappear when you close your eyes, but since I cannot prove it and it doesn't achieve much even if it were true it certainly won't help me solve this murder mystery That kind of philosophy is meant to be a thought exercise I thought, and has no place applying to a mystery that is supposed to follow the general rules of this world (In this case assuming that you are Battler and what you see is real, everything else you just get from other people).



Also after mainlining that dose of newly translated manga into my veins, I am interested to see how they managed to avoid showing Erika or Natsuhi actually see Kanon and Shannon together in the parlor scene at the end of Ep 5. They did however gloss over Erika not questioning their appearance or lack there of there.

Seriously, what was Ryu thinking with that scene. He had to have noticed as he was writing it (otherwise he easily could have had them both disappear (I mean Krauss did, and no-one suspected him for it). Heck, he could have written a thematically interesting scene where either Shannon or Kanon is held hostage too. So I can either assume he is using some amazing trick that is going over all of our heads, they will address it later in the manga, or he made such a stupid stupid blunder that they had to follow it in the manga so that he can pretend it was deliberate. It just seems difficult to miss such a huge error, he wrote a whole game around keeping them in separate rooms....

[battle22]

Here is what I think of parlor scene of EP5. First of all We dont have any murders in Ep5 right? That means we have crimes without a coprse, We have no crime , therefore we do not need a detective. Then The difference the way people treat erika, in Ep5 they love the shit out of her and in Ep6 they hate her, What if Adults aproached Erika and she is also on the sheme to make Natsu reveal Kinzos death? She knows everything because she is reading the script which adults wrote, Her motive is as she said, She loves to reveal stuff that people hide. The reason for her not seeing Shkannon is the same as other adults. Detectives authority does not work, Because in a tale with no murders does not need a detective. I answer the Parlor scene with this, What do you guys think?

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

What I told you back then was that I didn't understand the relevance of your point unless you were assuming your very premise which, as I pointed out, would have been a circular logic.

If you had simply explained your point rather than going on a tangent on how circular logic isn't wrong per se, disregarding the fact that I was assuming the context of a discussion, since it was what we were doing, we wouldn't be arguing about all this pholosophical "crap" (as you like to define it).

I still hold the claim that any logic used about the "truth" of Umineko requires assumptions that other people can't accept, and are thus circular arguments. I just happened to realize that my argument wasn't based on the same assumption as I thought it might be (honestly, at the time I didn't think that deeply about what assumption I was making). And sure, I'll take responsibility for not realizing that sooner.

Actually, now that I look at it, this whole argument you made here is demonstrably circular:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Wanderer: She doesn't just pick them off the street. She adopts them and hides them from the outside world. Who does this besides someone who wants their own personal amnesiac?

Jan-Poo: Ikuko. That's really the only person you can state with certainty that she would. Because no one else did that. Yasu didn't do that, unless you assume that Yasu=Ikuko to begin with, and then that becomes circular logic.

You see, Ikuko not being Yasu was necessary for your premise to be true because only if Ikuko is not Yasu can she exist as an example of someone other than Yasu.

• Implicit: Ikuko isn't Yasu.
• Explicit: (Therefore) Yasu didn't adopt an amnesiac <==(ONLY TRUE IF IKUKO IS NOT YASU, THUS THE IMPLICIT PREMISE)
• Explicit: Therefore Wanderer can't show that Yasu didn't do it without being circular, which is a fallacious argument anyway.
• Implicit: Therefore Ikuko isn't Yasu.

So there you go.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I've shown you several black crows. I'm not saying that this proves definitely that I'm right, but it's your turn to prove that there is a crow that isn't black.
In other words show me where it is stated that a logical fallacy can be considered valid in a general sense and not in its specific parts.

You've shown me two black crows, to be exact. It's not that many; in fact it's the bare minimum required to base an argument off a pattern. But even then, both of them are not just black crows, they're big ("invalidity in inference") black ("invalidity in name") crows ("fallacies"). Based on this logic alone, there's no way to know whether "black" correlates to "crows" or to "big". And we know that my crow is not big, but small ("valid in inference").

In other words, it's a wash. You haven't established anything. You're argument based off a pattern fails so long as every crow you show shares the same common quality that my crow lacks.

By the way, while we're talking about crows, I'd like to point out that this quote:

"A well defined formal fallacy, logical fallacy or deductive fallacy, is typically called an invalid argument. An informal fallacy is argument that may fail to be rationally persuasive."

Can be analogized into "Crows A and B are black. Crow C is shiny." Taken in its context of normal language, this patterns typically indicates a contrast. In other words, it suggests that, unlike crows A and B, crow C is not black.

So in fact, not only do these two quotes not support your argument at all, but one of them actually supports mine.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

From the very beginning you made the wrong assumption that I was using a specific philosophical lingo. The term "valid" has a wider meaning than the specific case you're talking about.

Of course it does. But as far as I can tell you've been arguing that circular reasoning is invalid by definition, not by opinion.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/valid?s=tLogic . (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

If the premises are not jointly asserted, your logic is not valid.

What's your point? That there must be 2 or more premises? You can always decompress any argument into a syllogism or sequence of syllogisms, right?

And what's with you pulling a logic-related definition after claiming you're not using logic-lingo?

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

For the time being I'll disregard the fact that your theory is actually that Yasu adopted a stranger (you claimed that she only though about making him Battler later, right?)

I wasn't arguing from the standpoint of that theory (not even in the original quote).

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

But you're forgetting that the fact that "Battler was adopted" is already known. While "who adopted Battler" is what we don't know.

I've "forgotten" nothing. At the time I was just making a certain point and nothing more. I've always been conscious of the fact that the chance Yasu (as Ikuko) and Battler would meet coincidentally would be statistically negligible.

There are two ways I've got at the moment to approach the issue: 1) An appeal to the theme of miracles. 2) It's not a coincidence (as in, Yasu-as-Ikuko knew where Battler would be for some reason).

By the way, what do you think Ryuukishi was doing with the 19ko pun?

Originally Posted by GuestSpeaker

Seriously, what was Ryu thinking with that scene. He had to have noticed as he was writing it (otherwise he easily could have had them both disappear (I mean Krauss did, and no-one suspected him for it). Heck, he could have written a thematically interesting scene where either Shannon or Kanon is held hostage too. So I can either assume he is using some amazing trick that is going over all of our heads, they will address it later in the manga, or he made such a stupid stupid blunder that they had to follow it in the manga so that he can pretend it was deliberate. It just seems difficult to miss such a huge error, he wrote a whole game around keeping them in separate rooms....

He did it on purpose to throw people off who had noticed the Shannon-Kanon never appearing together thing and let people like KnownNoMore fool themselves into thinking ShKanon was false. Whatever he did, it's ultimately based off some excuse like "Lambda ran the game different" or "Battler wasn't the detective" or something like battle22's idea.

I'm interested in seeing how the manga handles it too. Maybe I can find a physical raw somewhere (since I live in Japan now).

Originally Posted by battle22

Detectives authority does not work, Because in a tale with no murders does not need a detective. I answer the Parlor scene with this, What do you guys think?

It got her into the cousins' room, apparently. And there's also that red about Krauss being killed.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by GuestSpeaker

Indeed I could argue when you are alone that the parts of the world you cannot touch, smell, hear or taste disappear when you close your eyes, but since I cannot prove it and it doesn't achieve much even if it were true it certainly won't help me solve this murder mystery That kind of philosophy is meant to be a thought exercise I thought, and has no place applying to a mystery that is supposed to follow the general rules of this world (In this case assuming that you are Battler and what you see is real, everything else you just get from other people).

You're misunderstanding the point of Shannon and Kanon though. Don't focus on Battler so much except that he's a perspective character. Rather, ask yourself about Beatrice.

If we presume in the stories Shannon and Kanon are being affected by Beatrice, then really they only exist when Beatrice needs to interact with somebody as Shannon or Kanon. We also know she is capable of interacting with people as Beatrice, because the stories explicitly show her doing so (Turn or Alliance) or implicitly suggest it (any time she hangs out with Maria).

So the question becomes... what does she think of herself when there's nobody else around? There is no need to create the impression that she is Shannon or Kanon, because there would be no purpose to doing so. Our Confession seems to make very clear that, when acting alone, Beatrice pretty much operates entirely under her own objectives without variation or hesistation unless she needs to interact with someone.

So what we know for a fact is that the only verifiable appearances of Shannon or Kanon are the ones before Battler, and the only presumed appearances are the ones reported as having happened by other characters... but only if those characters are not accomplices, because Our Confession strongly implies that "Beatrice" reveals herself to her chosen accomplices when striking a deal with them. "Shannon and Kanon" by their nature seem to carry with them the appearance of ignorance of Beatrice's plans, so when Beatrice is interacting with her accomplices she's presumably dropping that act. Philosophically, a Kanon who is aware (or correctly speaking acts as if he is aware) of Beatrice's machinations is not really Kanon.

Thus, the only time Shannon or Kanon exist in the stories is when Beatrice interacts with someone who recognizes them as such. Which suggests that all that characterization stuff that happens to them happens independent of the "board narrative" and is closer to meta-level narration (which makes sense, as unlike fantasy narrative it has series continuity). In other words, Shannon and Kanon are solely meta-level characters, because the instant Battler leaves the room Kanon was in, Kanon isn't there anymore.

Interestingly, I guess this can provide an explanation for the Logic Error: Shannon was in the next room over because she was being observed by other individuals, forcing Beatrice to act as Shannon (and thus perceived as Shannon, Shannon existed). Upon leaving the next room over, Shannon disappeared (as she was no longer observed) and reverted to being Beatrice. However, Kanon was able to rescue Battler and enter the room because once Battler perceived Kanon at the door, Beatrice became recognized as Kanon and Kanon was present. Kanon then entered the room under Battler's supervision, making the red true, and Battler left. Once Battler left, Kanon was unobserved and ceased to exist, meaning Beatrice was in the room. Erika never observed Beatrice before the Logic Error was declared, so Kanon did not exist in the room because he was never observed.

There you go: The Quantum Kanon Logic Error Solution(tm).

[Patchwork Chimera]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

1)You're absolutely right. It's also absolutely not like anything Renall and I have been suggesting the slightest bit, which only reinforces my assertion that you do not understand what the two of us are saying.

2) Ryukishi does not agree, if Our Confession is any indication.
None of this has anything to do with the fact that Ryukishi cheated at his own game and refuses to be intellectually honest with his story. I don't even have to go to different 'layers' of the story to demonstrate that, because '1998 doesn't function like Beato's gameboard' was never the point.
If Battler is on the 'other side of the catbox' and thus has different rules, then the Red Truth shouldn't be able to talk about him. That's Renall's point; it's the same sort of problem as having 'Death' mean two or three or four different things in the Red Truth, making it a useless tool where anyone can say anything if they redefine words. That's how Ryukishi undermined his entire game.

3) That being said, I don't really care about how I sound. It shouldn't have any impact on the merit of my statements.

See above. I'm not being aggressive; you are, however, being condescending.

1) It's what was quoting directly my post and what Cap Bluebeard anwered. So I assumed that you were saying something about that. But it's okay, it was like four pages ago so maybe there was a mixup.

2) Yeah. His redefinitions and twists are bizarre, forced and kind of ilogical. Then again, the execution is enterely experimental and is trying to break the ordinary way of see a game/mistery. So maybe it didn't work terribly fine, but the premise was good enough to make this monster topic of theories and debate. So a lot of his anwers tried to be so unheard of that they ended up being mad, and anothers were so obvious homage/inspiration of things that at the end it was seen as 'And Then there Were None' and 'The Green Murder Case' remake with fanservice.

Yeah. There's some serious problem with the red. I always said it, and people started quoting Ryuukishi that 'I should trust the writer'. So I believed that the red was made in a way to make it possible to twist in the better way to create the most possible variety of 'tecnically correct answers'. I can see why he did it. I cannot like it enterely.

3) How am I supposed to react when someone starts to sneer at what I was saying? Should I ignore watever you say? Because I wouldn't like it, I'm pretty sure that in a debate ignoring counters invalidates half if not all your points and not defending a theory is giving up way too soon in something that can be polished to maybe make some kind of stake.

And calling me condescending? I just try to make the less conflictive approach and read and hear what people has to say, but since you are just taking what some people like to call polite conversation and turn it into condescending, I'm gonna go rude on you. I should go browse some cursewords and ways to make everyone feel like I'm bitting them trough net?
And just to make it clear, the above paragraph wasn't 'Condescending'. I was being offensive. Since I come from an enviroment were talking back to a heartless jerk can throw me to the streets, forgive me if I feel so strongly about your way of post demeaning things to others.

I think is pretty obvious that english is not my mother language too, and that this is of topic, so for the sake of mental peace, let's just call it a misunderstanding and drop it.

PD: I messed with your post to answer it in one quote and one answer. Sorry about that.

[battle22]

"It got her into the cousins' room, apparently. And there's also that red about Krauss being killed. "
Was time of death said in the red? I don't remember, If not than Lambda just cheated with reds , Explosion happened and Whoever turned it on , Killed the rest of the people

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Renall

Right, so, you just proved the utter stupidity of even discussing Battler's death in red. Which means... wait, what are you talking about? Because Battler's idiotic stupid amnesia only even works in that context.

Shouldn't we be applying greater realistic scrutiny to something not inside the catbox?

Basically you're completely incoherent.

I've just noticed something interesting.
Gameboard Battler usually always die so the red is valid on the gameboard... and Meta Battler also sort of die as he drown himself to follow Beatrice so that red is also valid in the meta world.

So that red doesn't even have to refer to personality death in the real world but to a Piece/Meta character's death.

Bern is awesome at trolling Ange leading her into believing that a truth that's not of the real world would apply in it also.

[AuraTwilight]

3) How am I supposed to react when someone starts to sneer at what I was saying?

I didn't do that. I think you might be injecting your own interpretations into my messages. On the internet, there's no body language, vocal tones, or any other non-verbal cues to indicate how I feel.

And calling me condescending? I just try to make the less conflictive approach and read and hear what people has to say, but since you are just taking what some people like to call polite conversation and turn it into condescending, I'm gonna go rude on you. I should go browse some cursewords and ways to make everyone feel like I'm bitting them trough net?

When people are only elaborating on points you seem to have misunderstood, and you respond by calling them "overly defensive", or generally acting like your words are getting the better of them emotionally, that's being condescending. Your choice of words implied that you thought of me and Renall as emotionally compromised children who had no sense of objectivity in the conversation, given that you specifically designated yourself the 'level-headed one.'

If that's not what you intended to say, then I'm sorry, but that's what your word choice led me to believe, just like you misinterpreted me as being aggressive or angry. It seems like you're the one who's starting to get angry though, given that you were the one who kept bringing personal and emotional points into the argument. Try taking a step back and cooling off.

I think is pretty obvious that english is not my mother language too, and that this is of topic, so for the sake of mental peace, let's just call it a misunderstanding and drop it.

PD: I messed with your post to answer it in one quote and one answer. Sorry about that.

No problem, it's fine.

I've just noticed something interesting.
Gameboard Battler usually always die so the red is valid on the gameboard... and Meta Battler also sort of die as he drown himself to follow Beatrice so that red is also valid in the meta world.

1) This point would be valid if Battler had died on ANY OF THE GAMEBOARDS OF CHIRU. He never does, though. Seriously. Battler doesn't die after EP4, ever.

2) That wasn't Meta-Battler.

[Kealym]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Hum, really? Exact quote wanted.

Admittedly, it was very "in passing" sort of line.

Spoiler for passage:

"Gradually, my interests shifted from myself to Ikuko.
Hachijou Ikuko.
A very strange woman.
First offm she was apparently the daughter of a very well-off family, just as she had said.
However, she was considerably eccentric, and the 'various mischievous incidents' she spoke of had apparently gotten her within an inch of being disowned."

I mean, it's not like we're shown Tohya searching through the old town hall for birth certificates, but Ryu has a tendency to "tell, not show" on such affairs, and I find it far smoother to just go along with it. Anyway, the way it's phrased does imply that he got some sort of confirmation, despite Ikuko pretty much being a hermit cat lady.

Originally Posted by Drifloon

Uh...both I and everyone else I've ever talked to has always assumed that it was Ange, and had their mind blown when it was shown to be Battler in the ????. ...How could anyone not assume that? The game deliberately leads you to think so.

Agreed, and like I said, I also assumed it was Ange at the very beginning. But as Wanderer says, the setting was totally unprecedented, the tone between them (...well, at least IMO) was pretty couple-y, and the interest in Mystery was defiitely one of Battler's traits. The timing implies that forgeries were only just beginning to become popular online, and since Battler is supposed to be dead (even though he was always the most likely candidate for "secretly still alive somehow"), one would wonder why Ange's image was being obscured in the first place. Sorry if I sound silly and arrogant, but it's one of the few "twists" I was able to notice immediately.

Originally Posted by GuestSpeaker

Also after mainlining that dose of newly translated manga into my veins, I am interested to see how they managed to avoid showing Erika or Natsuhi actually see Kanon and Shannon together in the parlor scene at the end of Ep 5. They did however gloss over Erika not questioning their appearance or lack there of there.

Seriously, what was Ryu thinking with that scene.

Let us not forget that are two such parlor scenes to bear in mind. I remember seeing the page from the first one (where Erika meets everyone), and every single person is in the parlor, in very plain sight, and of course that's the page they decide to give In other words, the number of people in this parlor now is equal to the total number of people on this island.

Originally Posted by battle22

Detectives authority does not work, Because in a tale with no murders does not need a detective. I answer the Parlor scene with this, What do you guys think?

I proclaim that Furudo Erika is the detective., as said the Game Master. I personally believe that Lambda just changed the premise of the gameboard, little bit, to give Kanon a bit more flexibility. It's certainly within her right, after all.

Originally Posted by Renall

There you go: The Quantum Kanon Logic Error Solution(tm).

Well, despite your intention in describing this, it's probably the cleanest way of wording that general solution.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Renall

There you go: The Quantum Kanon Logic Error Solution(tm).

I approve.

Originally Posted by battle22

"It got her into the cousins' room, apparently. And there's also that red about Krauss being killed. "
Was time of death said in the red? I don't remember, If not than Lambda just cheated with reds , Explosion happened and Whoever turned it on , Killed the rest of the people

Ushiromiya Krauss is not the culprit. And he was killed long ago, shortly after you heard his voice over the phone, get it?

Spoken during the trial of illusions. Bern was sealing away any loose ends to the possibility of Natsuhi's innocence. Natsuhi was offered the chance to blame Krauss, but she refused; then Bern came out with the red to make it official.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

that's what your word choice led you to believe, just like you misinterpreted me as being aggressive or angry.

"you misinterpreted me as being aggressive or angry" is a word choice too. It could just as easily be "I misrepresented myself as aggressive or angry". They both are essentially describing the same thing.

EDIT due to Ninja:

Originally Posted by Kealym

Admittedly, it was very "in passing" sort of line.

Spoiler for passage:

"Gradually, my interests shifted from myself to Ikuko.
Hachijou Ikuko.
A very strange woman.
First off she was apparently the daughter of a very well-off family, just as she had said.
However, she was considerably eccentric, and the 'various mischievous incidents' she spoke of had apparently gotten her within an inch of being disowned."

I mean, it's not like we're shown Tohya searching through the old town hall for birth certificates, but Ryu has a tendency to "tell, not show" on such affairs, and I find it far smoother to just go along with it. Anyway, the way it's phrased does imply that he got some sort of confirmation, despite Ikuko pretty much being a hermit cat lady.

Actually, Touya's use of the word "apparently" to me indicates he never really got solid evidence. And by the tone, it seems to me that Touya never really tried; he's just objectively reporting his impression of her.

Still, you are right that it's kind of weird to suspect these impressions when we don't even know what gave Touya these impressions.

[AuraTwilight]

"you misinterpreted me as being aggressive or angry" is a word choice too. It could just as easily be "I misrepresented myself as aggressive or angry". They both are essentially describing the same thing.

Fair enough, but the point was I was turning around their accusation to demonstrate that I wasn't the only one misunderstanding the other person.

[RandomAvatarFan]

Originally Posted by Renall

There you go: The Quantum Kanon Logic Error Solution(tm).

And it is only the truth if we accept it as such. Everyone please place your votes, and if "yes" reaches a majority, Renall's blue will become the accepted truth.
All in favor say "aye"
All opposed say "nay"

[Patchwork Chimera]

@AuraTwilight: Humm... Let's just stop and call it a day okay? I have to deal with enough crap on a daily basis without a rapid-fire fight about semanthics of a language I'm no master of in some anime forum. So I give my best wishes, you maybe do that too and we sign peace and continue goating about Umineko over here, ya?.

Going on general topic...

I think that all that Tohya/Ikuko thing had something to do with Ryuukishi and his deceased best friend whose name I can't recall. If we analize about his tone, all that continuing the gameboard even if one of the creators is not there... that scene where 'Featherine' ends writing something and asks to the air if its allright to finish it that way. I don't know, Maybe I can see Ryuukishi's heart there, asking that lost friend if he was happy with what he wrote.
That's why he says the gameboard isn't completely his and he can only especulate. IIRC, it was his friend who gave him the ideas about Higurashi and Umineko. Like Tohya firing ideas to Ikuko and Ikuko making some work that can be published...

Maybe that's why all that situation feels so weird, he's picturing his own toughts without caring that much if they mesh in Umineko because for him, they do.

Edit: I say 'aye' to Renall's blue stake. I feel something is weird in that but since I can't say what, I can't complain against it. At least still I rack my brains enough to see what's the weird part in it.

[GuestSpeaker]

And there's also that red about Krauss being killed.

Not only that, in the manga at least they later have some reds about the 5 missing corpses being dead with their throats cut. Either it was a translation error, or for meta reasons the 5 did actually have their throats cut.

I'm interested in seeing how the manga handles it too

So far they have avoided really showing them together in any fashion, but have not addressed Erika not noticing this. She had the parlor locked by Kanon (but we never actually SAW Shannon outside of some imaginations of Natsuhi of her) but then they both appeared in the magic witches court (where they both conveniently said they still existed, not that they were alive)

I dunno, maybe all along Erika, or at least Bern, knew.

Our Confession seems to make very clear that, when acting alone, Beatrice pretty much operates entirely under her own objectives

Are you referring to the summary we all read, or the actual thing?

There you go: The Quantum Kanon Logic Error Solution(tm).

Rather beautiful, except for the fact that if we assume Ryu didn't somehow think of them as separate people and treated them thusly, the definition of died becomes even flimsier. How does it feel, to stretch the meaning of death even more than the author you despise? Do you enjoy playing witch while killing innocent servants? (kihihihi)

Beatrice is interacting with her accomplices she's presumably dropping that act. Philosophically, a Kanon who is aware (or correctly speaking acts as if he is aware) of Beatrice's machinations is not really Kanon.

Did we actually know if she appeared to them as Beatrice, or Beatrice-knowing Shannon or Kanon? There are multiple ways around this. For example, Beato appears to the accomplices as herself (even if dressed otherwise) and Shannon and Kanon truly do never know her plans, then they are given the command to die/play dead when Beato wins the love duel. Or maybe Shannon and Kanon do know part of the plans and appear to the siblings as an emissary, explaining the magic scenes where they decide to fight fate and stop playing the witch's game (which usually results in their immediate death, as well as any love interests who happen to be nearby. And Ghoda, because everyone hates Ghoda).

not than Lambda just cheated with reds , Explosion happened and Whoever turned it on , Killed the rest of the people

As I said, that game definitely had reds about throat cutting.


As for another point, if we take the Golden truth to be the agreed upon opinion or some such, then that scene with Erika and the unfair relationship game with Dlanor gets interesting. It becomes both a bitter remark by Erika referring to the last game, AND basically her saying "If he couldn't prove it with certainty, why didn't he at least make me believe it"

[battle22]

As I said, that game definitely had reds about throat cutting.

Dayamn.How about this, Since we are not shown Erikas point of view, there is a posibility that she did notice shkanon, In ep5 Battler still is the narrator right?

[AuraTwilight]

Rather beautiful, except for the fact that if we assume Ryu didn't somehow think of them as separate people and treated them thusly, the definition of died becomes even flimsier. How does it feel, to stretch the meaning of death even more than the author you despise? Do you enjoy playing witch while killing innocent servants? (kihihihi)

You realize he's being facetious, right?

Also Renall doesn't despite Ryukishi. That's silly.

[GuestSpeaker]

So far in the manga, they have actually not been deliberately shown together in Erika's view. Except for the "the number of people in this parlor" page someone mentioned but I can't find (link?) we are only shown them actually together when Lamba first introduces the game, and that is likely not a real view of Erika's, since it is from the roof.

But even if we are never shown them together in her view in the manga, someone says in the GM they are both mentioned as being in the room.

Even ignoring that, would Erika not notice that one of them was missing?


The only logical explanation I can agree with is the one that says that when Lamba declared "the number of people in this parlor etc." and showed them both, she was basically declaring the number of people in this game is different. It is a possible move, as we know the number of keys change, and it is a move Beato would never do (because it ruins the heart and love of her game) and it is a dirty trick, but possible. Reflecting on it like this I can actually see it as a discernible move, but that is only because I am looking at it from in retrospect. Knowing that in every game before, the GM declared there were no more than 18, that in that game, there WERE 18 and that in game 6 Battler declared THERE ARE ONLY 17, this move is actually entirely valid. Dirty, but valid. However from the point of view of people reading up to ep 5 it actually seems like the natural progression of counting.

That actually makes game 6 the only one which needs to be solved with SHkannon.

That also means that my opinion has just changed dramatically. If you understand Beato's heart, you can see how it is a loveless game. It was hinted to be so. It was us the audience who assumed the number of people had to be the same across all games, though it was never stated so. In fact, each solvable game HAD the number of people stated separately. This is a dirty rotten move, highly despicable and I sort of love it.

Then again, I appreciate a dirty but valid trick once it is explained, so maybe I am in the minority.